[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 40, Number 17 (Monday, April 26, 2004)]
[Pages 655-664]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session at the Newspaper Association 
of America Convention

April 21, 2004

    The President. Thank you all. Burl, thank you very much. I kind of 
like ducking those questions. [Laughter] I appreciate you having me. I 
hope this toast business becomes a habit--[laughter]--if you know what I 
mean. [Laughter]
    Thanks for letting me come. Tom, thank you for your invitation. 
Dean, thank you for having me here. Members of the Politburo--
[laughter]--I mean, my fellow Americans. [Laughter]
    I was thinking about what I was going to tell you when I came over 
here today, and I thought I'd talk a little bit about the role of the 
President in creating an environment so that our prosperity lasts and 
then the role of the President in securing America. And then I'll be 
glad to duck some questions--[laughter]--just like my mother told me to 
do. [Laughter]
    We're prosperous now, which is good, particularly if you're a guy 
seeking the vote. New jobs are being created. I think we had 308,000 in 
the month of March. Industrial production rose at 6.6 percent in the 
first quarter of this year, which is a positive sign. Homeownership is 
at the highest rate ever, which is really positive for America. The more 
people who own something, the better off the country is. Inflation is 
low. Interest rates are low, and the economy is growing, which is good 
news.
    And the question is, really, from a Presidential perspective is, 
what do you do to keep in place an environment so that prosperity lasts 
beyond just a recovery? It's amazing that we're growing in spite of the 
fact that we've been through a recession, a war, an emergency, and 
corporate scandals, which speaks to the resiliency of the American 
people and the strength of the entrepreneurial spirit.
    The way I view the role of Government is that the Government's role 
isn't to create wealth. The Government's role isn't to say, ``I created 
jobs.'' The Government's role is to create an environment in which 
entrepreneurs feel comfortable about expanding the job base and risking 
capital.
    So here are some things that I think our country must do to make 
sure that we have lasting prosperity, prosperity that reflects the 
willingness of the American system to put in place a competitive system, 
competitive with other countries.
    First, we've got to have a balanced legal system. I'm deeply 
concerned about a legal system that is fraught with frivolous and junk 
lawsuits which make it harder to form businesses, make it less desirable 
to risk capital. A competitive business environment that will encourage 
lasting prosperity must mean there needs to be balance in our legal 
system. There must be tort reform. There's a proper role for tort reform 
at the Federal Government. Class-action lawsuits need to be reformed, in 
my judgment. Asbestos reforms legislation is stuck in the Senate, ought 
to go forward. Obviously, there's a lot that needs to be done at the 
State level. The President can help nudge that along with the bully 
pulpit, but the Congress ought to move on tort reform.
    And they ought to do so on medical liability reform as well. When I 
first came to Washington, I wasn't sure if a proper role of the Federal 
Government was to get involved with medical liability reform. Then I saw 
what frivolous lawsuits and the defensive practice of medicine do to the 
Federal budgets. They cost us a lot of money, and it's a national issue, 
therefore. And so Congress needs to pass medical liability reform, not 
only to send a message that tort reform is

[[Page 656]]

vital but also to help us control the cost of medicine, which is a 
second necessary ingredient for there to be lasting prosperity.
    I'm a big promoter in what's called health savings accounts and 
association health care plans, because I believe that the best way to 
help control health care costs in the long run is to empower consumer 
decisionmaking in the process, as opposed to Federal Government 
decisionmaking in the process.
    And I readily concede there's a philosophical debate here in 
Washington, DC, of the proper role of the Federal Government versus the 
marketplace. It should come as no surprise to you that I tend to side 
with those who believe market forces are the best way to allocate 
resources and the best way to help control costs and, therefore, will 
continue to be a strong proponent of new ideas such as health savings 
accounts to empower consumers and to encourage the doctor-patient 
relationship that has been eroded as a result of bureaucracies, both in 
the private and public sectors, springing forth.
    There also needs to be innovation in the health care field as well 
as the rest of our society. One of the interesting things about health 
care is, it's kind of like a cottage industry that has yet to adapt to 
the new technologies of the 21st century. And therefore, there are 
missed opportunities when it comes to helping control costs and to 
provide quality care.
    The proper role of the Federal Government, in my judgment on this, 
is to help set a national standard so that the myriad of producers have 
something around which to make proper decisionmaking when it comes to 
the use of IT technology. I believe there ought to be broadband in every 
community and available to every house by the year 2007, in order to 
make sure America has lasting prosperity. And that's just the beginning. 
I think not only should broadband be accessible, but there ought to be 
ample providers available to every house and every community in America.
    And two thoughts pop in my mind about making sure that the broadband 
technology is expanding properly. One, there needs to be good tax policy 
in order to encourage the spread of broadband technology, which means we 
shouldn't tax access. If we want it to spread rapidly and if we want it 
to be available in all communities, in my judgment the Federal 
Government should deny taxation to broadband technology access. And 
secondly, there needs to be good regulatory policy out of the 
administration so as to encourage the spread of competitive--of services 
throughout our country.
    By being an innovative society and promoting innovation, we'll have 
lasting prosperity. We're lagging a little bit on broadband technology, 
the access of broadband technology. And I think we need to kind of 
accelerate it with good policy and, particularly, good regulatory policy 
out of the FCC. I think we're getting that from Chairman Powell. I feel 
comfortable he's got a good and positive vision about how to spread 
broadband.
    You know, it's an interesting debate, of course, during a political 
year--and actually, almost every year--as to whether or not we ought to 
be a free-trading nation. I'm a big believer in free trade. If we want 
to have lasting prosperity, it is essential that the Nation reject the 
economic isolationism and promote trade.
    Our markets are relatively open to other nations. It's a decision, 
by the way, of administrations from both political parties that it makes 
sense for the consumers to be able to have more choices and more 
decisions. When you have more choices and more decisions in the 
marketplace, you generally get better quality goods at a better price.
    And yet, other countries haven't reciprocated. And to me, the proper 
role of the administration to make sure there's lasting prosperity is to 
insist that other countries open up their markets, as opposed to closing 
ours. And we'll continue to do so. We filed a WTO suit against China. 
We've made some noise here and there. We will insist that the trade laws 
be enforced.
    But it's essential that the country reject economic isolationism if 
we want to have lasting prosperity. Trade wars will make it incredibly 
difficult for us to be prosperous and also, by the way, hurt countries 
on the continent of Africa, for example, desperate, poor little 
countries trying to develop markets and trying to develop a business 
community and small businesses. If we don't open up our

[[Page 657]]

markets to them, if we don't trade freely, it'll be difficult for there 
to be hope in impoverished parts of the world.
    We need an energy plan. You know, it's--we're a country where they 
say, ``Okay, what is your plan?'' Well, I'm going to jawbone. It's an 
awkward position for any President to be in. It means we don't have an 
energy plan, is what it means. It means we're hooked. I get, ``What are 
you going to do about it? Are you going to pick up the phone and hope 
somebody produces more energy?'' That says we're dependent, and we are.
    I think we ought to have a full-scale debate and, in my judgment, 
opening up different supplies of energy. I think we need to promote 
nuclear energy. I think we need to make sure we've got clean coal 
technologies available. I think we ought to be exploring for natural 
gas, where we can find natural gas.
    It is--this country is--in order for us to be prosperous in the long 
run, we can't remain hooked on foreign sources of energy. Obviously, 
we've got to promote conservation, new technologies. Listen, I'd love to 
be able to grow our way out of energy independence. There would be 
nothing better for an American President to say, ``Okay, plant more 
corn, and we'll become less dependent on foreign sources of energy.'' I 
fully understand that. The idea of biodiesel makes a lot of sense. We 
ought to continue to promote research and development. And I'm convinced 
technologies will help us in the long run when it comes to becoming less 
dependent on foreign sources of energy.
    The question is, what do we do in the next decade? How do we deal 
with the reality of the situation? And I would hope I can get a bill out 
of Congress that will encourage additional supply and, at the same time, 
encourage conservation and reduce demand.
    The problem we have in the world, by the way, today is that China is 
cranking up their economy. Steel prices are high. Energy prices are 
high, because demand in China is really high. And that's what we're 
faced with. We're faced with a world economy that's beginning to 
recover, with supplies getting tight. And without an energy plan, 
without additional supply, it's going to make us hard to stay 
competitive as well as prosperous in the long run.
    I see some people who, unfortunately, have to follow me around the 
country. I've been spending a lot of time recently on job training 
programs, because education is one really important way as to how we're 
going to have lasting prosperity. I think if you talk to people on the 
leading edge of change here in the country, they will tell you that one 
of their biggest concerns is to be able to find workers that are skilled 
in the jobs of the 21st century. Obviously, we've got to get it right 
through the No Child Left Behind Act, which I'll be glad to expound on, 
if it's one of your questions.
    But there needs to be job training programs that recognizes that as 
technologies race through our society, workers are likely to be left 
behind. And that's why I have promoted--or could be left behind, is a 
better way to put it--that's why I have promoted the community college 
system as a way to make sure that willing workers are matched with 
employers and they have the skill base to do so. The community college 
system is affordable, available, and accessible. They're great things. 
What I like about them is that they're able to adjust their curriculum 
to be able to meet the demands of those who are actually hiring people.
    And finally, a subject that I know that many of you here are 
delighted with, there needs to be permanency in the Tax Code. We don't 
need to be raising taxes right now if we want to have lasting 
prosperity. The worst thing that can happen is to start raising taxes on 
the American people. If you're a planner and if you're spending capital, 
it is essential that there be certainty in the Tax Code. And a lot of 
the provisions of the tax relief we've passed are set to expire. It will 
be a big mistake, in my judgment, to let them expire. And so I will 
continue this year and in further years, hopefully, to be talking about 
permanency with the tax relief and simplification in the Tax Code.
    People say, ``What do you mean?'' I'll give you one example of how 
to simplify the code. If we can ever get rid of the death tax, forever, 
it will cut down on about 30 percent of the IRS code, they tell me. By 
the way, the death tax is bad, in my judgment. You're

[[Page 658]]

taxing a person's assets twice. And if you're interested in making sure 
the environment for the entrepreneur is strong and vibrant, it doesn't 
make sense to tax a person's assets twice. My firm belief is if it's 
your asset, you ought to be able to leave it to whom you want to leave 
it, without the Federal Government making it awfully difficult to do so.
    So that's--those are some ideas, and my job is to think beyond the 
immediate. And America must be wise about how we stay competitive 
because the world is really competitive, and it's changing. And the 
truth of the matter is, to make sure we've got jobs here at home and an 
expanding job base, we've got to be the best place to do business, the 
best place to invest capital, the best place for a small-business person 
to realize his or her dreams, and there are some ideas I just laid out 
that can help us stay that way.
    Security is obviously an issue that's on my mind. It should be on 
yours. I know it's on yours. You write about it all the time. We're at 
war, and it's a different kind of war. It is a war that is different 
because it's hard to really see the enemy, if you know what I mean. This 
is an enemy that is able to inflict serious destruction on people and 
yet be nearly invisible most of the time. It's a war in which people are 
hiding in caves. They give an order, and these people will go kill on a 
moment's notice. And they don't care who they kill. So in other words, 
it's an enemy that hides, an enemy that's so ruthless, there's no such 
thing as innocent or guilt. And they attacked today in Basra. It was a 
terrorist act today. They just blew up innocent Iraqis. They attacked in 
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, today, and they attack all the time.
    They'd like to attack us again as well, by the way. Obviously, my 
most solemn duty and the duty of everybody involved with government is 
to do everything we can to protect the American people. In this war 
against this enemy, we must use all our assets, not some of our assets 
but every asset at the disposal of those of us who are in positions of 
responsibility. Military assets, intelligence assets--we must rely upon 
alliances.
    And I will tell you the cooperation is good. So much has been 
focused on the decision in Iraq, which, of course, I'll talk about here 
in a minute, that people assume that there's not cooperation with 
nations that didn't agree with the decision in Iraq. That's just simply 
not the case. We're sharing information with countries that may not have 
agreed with us in Iraq. We're acting on information that we've passed 
back and forth together. Alliances are really important in the war 
against terror. International bodies can be important in the war against 
terror if they're effective. They're lousy in the war against terror if 
they're not effective, because this is a results-oriented game we're in 
right now. We've got to be effective to stop them.
    The thing that's interesting and different about this--well, it's 
not interesting--it's frightening about this war, is America is a 
battlefield in the war on terror. That's what's changed. We're now a 
target. It used to be Americans overseas were targets. It's Americans at 
home are targets. And that changes the equation about how a President 
must view threats when I see them or when we see them. What do you do 
about a threat that you see gathering overseas? Do you just kind of hope 
it goes away, or do you deal with it? And I've obviously made the 
decision to deal with it.
    There's no negotiations with these terrorists. These are not the 
kind of people you sit down and you negotiate with. You don't sign a 
treaty with people who are--who don't believe in rules, people who don't 
have a conscience. The strategy of the terrorists--they're trying to 
shake our will and turn free nations against each other. And they're--
these guys are tough, and they're sophisticated, and they're smart. And 
we just have to be tougher and smarter and more sophisticated in our 
approach to finding them.
    Al Qaida obviously is the name everybody knows that's associated 
with the war on terror. And we're hunting them down. It takes a while to 
find them, but we're using all our assets and resources and friends and 
allies to bring them to justice. It's the only way you have to deal with 
them, and it's important that we find them before they come here again 
or somewhere else, for that matter.
    And we're making pretty good progress. If Al Qaida were a board of 
directors, the chairman and vice chairman might still be out there, but 
the middle management is

[[Page 659]]

gone. That's not to say that they're not encouraging others to step 
forward. They are. But we're on the hunt, and we'll stay on the hunt. 
And it's essential that the country not yield, and lead. The world looks 
at us, and if we show any weakness whatsoever, there will be weakness in 
the world. And as I just told you, in order to win this war against 
these people, there has to be solid cooperation in the world.
    Right after September the 11th, I said, ``If you harbor a terrorist, 
you're just as guilty as the terrorist.'' I meant that. The American 
President, when he speaks, must speak clearly and must mean what he 
says. I meant what I said. The Taliban were given a notice. They didn't 
respond, and so we got rid of them. It just wasn't America; it was 
others.
    The world is much better off for that decisive action by our troops 
and the troops of other people, and so are the people who live in 
Afghanistan. I would urge you to see the movie ``Osama.'' It's hard for 
the American mentality to grasp how barbaric the Taliban was toward 
women in Afghanistan. So see the movie, and then maybe--it'll speak 
better than I can possibly speak. Burl is always accusing me of not 
being able to speak so good anyway. [Laughter]
    We're making good progress in Afghanistan. I'm proud of Karzai. He 
stepped up and led. The Afghan army is functioning. Listen, there's 
still work to be done there. There's work to be done in most countries 
where tyranny reigned. See, it's hard to go from a tyrannical state to a 
free state. It's hard to go into a society where if you stepped out of 
line, you were brutalized, into a society where people take risks for 
peace and freedom.
    And that's what you're seeing in Afghanistan, and frankly, that's 
what you're seeing in Iraq. In Iraq, I saw a gathering threat. The world 
saw a gathering threat. The United Nations saw a threat. I went to the 
United Nations. I said, ``Listen, you've been calling upon this guy to 
disarm for 10 years. He's chosen not to. Now let's give him one final 
chance to do so.'' And unanimously, the Security Council stepped up and 
said, ``Disarm, or face serious consequences,'' and so did the United 
States. And when you say, ``Disarm, or face serious consequences,'' you 
better mean what you say when you say it.
    And Saddam Hussein chose not to disarm. Listen, we viewed him as a 
threat. The intelligence said he was a threat. We all thought he had 
weapons. We found out--the truth will be known over time. We found out 
he had the ability to make weapons. He had the capability. I think the 
intent was clear. After all, he hated America. He paid suiciders to go 
kill Jews. He used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. And so 
he defied the world, and he's no longer in power. The world is better 
off for it, and so are the people of Iraq.
    Because we moved, torture chambers are closed; mass graves won't be 
filled; and democracy is growing in the heart of the Middle East. I'm 
oftentimes asked, ``Is there a solution for the war on terror?'' Yes, 
there's a long-term solution, and that's freedom. See, free societies 
don't promote terror. Free societies are peaceful societies. Free 
societies are societies that provide hope and opportunity for people.
    Now look, there's a debate, I readily concede. Some people don't 
believe if you're a Muslim or an Arab you can be free. I just strongly 
disagree with that thought. I think everybody yearns to be free, and I 
think everybody can self-govern.
    I remind you, some people thought the Japanese could never self-
govern or be free. And yet, as I said in my press conference the other 
day, I had the honor of sitting down with--dinner with President 
Koizumi--or Prime Minister Koizumi, and we were talking about North 
Korea, which I'll get to here in a second.
    It's amazing--he's a great guy, by the way. Elvis Presley is one of 
his favorites. [Laughter] His favorite movie was Gary Cooper in ``High 
Noon.'' One time he walked up to me and said, ``You like Cooper.'' 
[Laughter] I said, ``I'm like Cooper?'' He said, ``Yes.'' [Laughter] I 
finally figured out what he meant. [Laughter]
    We're talking about peace on the Korean Peninsula with a friend who 
is a former enemy. Some people never thought they could self-govern or 
be free. It dawned on me, by the way, in that conversation, someday an 
American President will be sitting

[[Page 660]]

down with a duly elected official from Iraq, talking about how to secure 
the peace better in the Middle East. This is an historic moment. Times 
are tough. The last couple of weeks have been really rough, roughest on 
the families of those who lost their lives and those who wonder about 
the security and safety of their loved ones.
    And the reason why they're tough is because people want to stop the 
advance of freedom. That's why. They can't stand the thought of Iraq 
being free. The stakes are high. They view freedom as a real threat to 
their ambitions. And the Iraqi people are looking--they're looking at 
America and saying, ``Are we going to cut and run again?'' That's what 
they're thinking as well.
    And we're not going to cut and run if I'm in the Oval Office. We 
will do our job. I believe that people yearn to be free. I believe the 
people of Iraq will self-govern, and I believe the world will be better 
off for it. I believe freedom in the heart of the Middle East is an 
historic opportunity to change the world, and it's essential that 
America show resolve and strength and not have our will shaken by those 
who are willing to murder the innocent.
    I mentioned Korea. I think it's--different threats are dealt with in 
different ways. When I came to office, the relationship on the Korean 
Peninsula, with North Korea was like ``America and North Korea.'' There 
was--we were expected to solve the problem, and it wasn't working. So I 
decided that--we tried another equation, and that is convince others in 
the neighborhood to become a party to convincing Kim Chong-il to disarm. 
It wasn't working, because if you can ever get the relationship between 
the United States and--kind of get a bilateral responsibility going with 
a guy like Kim Chong-il, all he's got to do is frighten everybody, and 
they run up to the United States and said, ``Oh, go fix it.'' You know, 
``Take care of business.''
    The only way to convince Kim Chong-il to disarm is to get China very 
much involved in the process, which we have done. It wasn't easy work 
because the Chinese felt it was the U.S. responsibility, and they really 
didn't want to have equity in the process. They were--we shared the same 
goal. As a matter of fact, when Jiang Zemin came to Crawford, he was 
quick to stand up and say, ``We don't want any nuclear weapons in the 
Korean Peninsula.'' He understood--he understands the stakes. The stakes 
are, of course, America will defend herself if we have to, and he 
understands that. The other thing is that he understands that if one 
country were to develop a nuclear weapon, other countries in the 
neighborhood might develop a nuclear weapon, and that wouldn't be in his 
interest.
    And so now the Chinese are involved with the process, as are the 
Russians and the Japanese and the South Koreans. And it's a steady, slow 
process to convince Kim Chong-il that his interests are not served by 
the development of a nuclear weapon that he can threaten the world with.
    We've made some other progress with him, by the way, through the 
Proliferation Security Initiative. It's an initiative of--gosh, I think 
18 countries have now signed on or something like that, some number 
close to that--where people are willing to interdict ships floating out 
of North Korea if we suspect there's cargo, illicit cargo like arms or 
drugs on them in order to at least stop him from exporting weapons that 
will be--could be used by all kinds of different people.
    Part of understanding North Korea better was a great success by our 
team and the Brits in unraveling the A.Q. Khan network. A.Q. Khan was a 
nuclear scientist in Pakistan that was willing to sell state secrets in 
order to make money. It's real dangerous, by the way, when you have 
somebody who is willing to sell information purely for money, because 
you don't know where that information might end up. And the ambitions of 
the terrorist network, of course, would be to have the ultimate weapons 
at their disposal in order to blackmail and/or to harm.
    The Libyans made a good decision to disarm. They were dangerous. We 
have found more than we thought they had, but they made a wise decision 
to do so. The reason I bring all that up is the war on terror is broader 
than just the Afghan or the Iraq theater. The war on terror is finding 
cells and routing people out before they attack. The war on terror is to 
stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The war on terror 
is to call people to account early, before it's too late. The war on 
terror is to recognize

[[Page 661]]

America is a part of the battlefield, and we must deal with threats 
before they're too late.
    The long-term strategy of this Government is to spread freedom 
around the world. And I believe--I told you, a free Iraq will be a major 
change agent for world peace.
    I also believe a free Palestinian state will be a major change agent 
for world peace. Ariel Sharon came to America and he stood up with me 
and he said, ``We are pulling out of Gaza and parts of the West Bank.'' 
In my judgment, the whole world should have said, ``Thank you, Ariel. 
Now we have a chance to begin the construction of a peaceful Palestinian 
state.''
    You know, there was kind of silence, wasn't there? Because the 
responsibility is hard. It's hard to be responsible for promoting 
freedom and peace when you're used to something else. If you don't have 
the aspirations of the people firmly embedded in your soul, it's hard to 
take a gamble for peace by putting the institutions of a free society in 
place, institutions that are bigger than the people.
    The Palestinian leadership has failed the people year after year 
after year. And now is the time for the world to step up and take 
advantage of this opportunity and help to build a Palestinian state 
that's committed to the principles of individual rights and rule of law 
and fairness and justice so the Palestinian people have a chance to grow 
a peaceful state and so that Israel has a partner in peace, not a 
launching pad of terrorist attacks, on her border.
    And finally, the United States has got responsibilities bigger than 
just leading the world toward peace and freedom. We've got the 
responsibility of helping to relieve suffering and hunger where we see 
it as well. You know, I mentioned to you that--I checked with Colin; I 
think this is true--that we're the biggest food donor to the North 
Korean people. That's a fact I don't think a lot of people know. I just 
hope the food goes to the people and not to the generals. Part of the 
issue is it's hard to verify whether or not the food is actually being 
distributed. But nevertheless, our heart is right.
    We want to help people who are hungry. We want to help people who 
suffer from HIV/AIDS. We want to make sure we help lift countries out of 
terrible poverty by opening our markets for their goods and services. We 
have a responsibility beyond just being the leader in the war against 
terror. We have a responsibility to be the leader in the war against 
hunger and disease and hopelessness. And we are--and we are.
    The role of the President is to think about the long term, is to 
think about how you put in place policy that will be historic, policies 
that will be--that will help change the world for the better. And I 
think we're doing just that.
    I'm ready to answer some questions. How long was that speech? How 
long did I talk? Too long, right? [Laughter]

Response to Terrorism

    Burl Osborne. Mr. President, you mentioned how difficult it is to 
visualize the enemy in a war on terror. And you also pointed out the 
long-term goal of freedom and democracy as an answer. And yet, today 
there is an AP poll that shows two-thirds of the people in this country 
think it's at least somewhat likely we'll have an attack before the 
elections, and nearly half the people are at least considering the 
possibility that at this point in time, the terrorists may be winning. 
And my question is, how, in the interim between now and that long-term, 
how do you persuade these people who are in doubt that they're wrong, 
that it won't end that way?
    The President. Two-thirds of the Americans think we're going to get 
hit again? Well, I can understand why they think they're going to get 
hit again. They saw what happened in Madrid. This is a hard country to 
defend. We are making good progress in the defense of America. We've got 
a Department of Homeland Security that now enables people to better 
coordinate and cooperate and share information. We've got a PATRIOT 
Act--which needs to be renewed, by the way, and strengthened, in my 
judgment--that is really important to allow the criminal division and 
the intelligence division of the FBI to share information, which they 
could not do before.
    And by the way, any provision in the PATRIOT Act that enables us to 
collect more information requires court order, just like it does when 
you're dealing with a mobster or

[[Page 662]]

a doctor that's creating criminal problems or white-collar crime.
    There is--but the PATRIOT Act helps. It helps us to be able to 
connect the dots, is a common phrase here in Washington.
    Our intelligence is good. It's just never perfect, is the problem. 
We are disrupting some cells here in America. We're chasing people down, 
but it is--we've got a big country, Burl. I'm from Texas. It is 
difficult to stop people coming across the Rio Grande River, whether 
they be people looking for work or people looking to do harm, and so I 
can see why people feel that way. And we've just got to stay on the 
offense, is what we've got to do.
    And what was the other part of the question?
    Mr. Osborne. You answered it.
    The President. Okay, good. [Laughter] At least I didn't duck this 
one.
    Mr. Osborne. We'll give you a chance to duck one.
    The President. Okay, good. [Laughter]

International Cooperation in the War on Terror

    Mr. Osborne. As you mentioned, there have been other incidents today 
in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. And you also mentioned the importance of our 
alliances. We've had some arrests in Britain, even in Spain and 
elsewhere.
    The question is, are you satisfied with the level of cooperation 
among the governments in combating these attacks?
    The President. Well, yes, I am. I think, obviously, we've got to 
continue to work to make sure people understand the threat is real. For 
a while, obviously, America was the most energetic in fighting terror 
because the memory of September the 11th was fresh in our mind and 
people felt like, ``It couldn't happen to me.'' There's been a lot of 
attacks since September the 11th, which has convinced people that we've 
got to work together.
    Saudi Arabia is a good example. This is a place, when they got 
attacked a year ago--that helped change their attitude toward chasing 
down Al Qaida types within their country. And the attack again today on 
Riyadh was a reminder that there are people that would like--I don't 
want to guess their intentions--I think they would like to overthrow the 
ruling Government. They certainly want to frighten everybody and kill as 
many as they can.
    The attacks on Istanbul happened when I was in Great Britain, and 
they were devastating attacks to the Brits--a lot of Brits were there--
but also to the Muslims who were killed.
    And the cooperation is good. But it's an issue that you just 
constantly have to work on to remind people of the stakes that just--
you've got to share intelligence better. And sometimes bureaucracies get 
in the way of the fast flow of information. I suspect governments 
complain that we might not be as forthcoming as quickly as they would 
hope us to be. I haven't heard much of that, but we're getting good 
cooperation. And it's--but I say it's an issue we've got to continue to 
work.
    Pakistan, we're getting good cooperation. Just think about what life 
was like prior to September the 11th in Pakistan. Pakistan was friendly 
to the Taliban. And fortunately, our Government, thanks to the good work 
of Colin Powell, convinced President Musharraf that that was not in his 
interests. His interests were to be working with us and fighting off the 
terror. Of course, since then Al Qaida has tried to kill him twice. I 
think it confirms the fact that he's chosen the right side. We're trying 
to help him.
    And he's active in the war on terror. And he is--but he's got 
issues, just like any of these countries have got issues. But he's 
done--in my judgment, he's been a good, strong ally. And I'm pleased 
with the fact that progress is now being made on the relationship 
between Pakistan and India. I don't know if you remember, I think it was 
in the year '01--I don't see many foreign policy kind of reporters here, 
but '01 was the year that we had shuttle diplomacy to convince Pakistan 
and India not to go to war with each other.
    Powell went, and then Straw went from Great Britain, and then 
Armitage went, and then whoever his equivalent is from Great Britain 
went, with the idea of kind of talking everybody down. And now, it's 
quite the opposite; they're talking with each other in a

[[Page 663]]

positive way and hopefully can get some sticky issues resolved, for the 
sake of world peace and stability in that part of the world. I think 
progress is being made. But we can always--we will always find ways to 
improve our alliances.
    I mentioned to you--look, I mentioned to you the need for 
international bodies to be effective. We're working with the IAEA with 
Iran. And the Iranians need to feel the pressure from the world that any 
nuclear weapons program will be uniformly condemned. It's essential that 
they hear that message. An appropriate international body to deal with 
them is the IAEA. They signed an additional protocol, which was a 
positive development. The foreign ministers of Great Britain, France, 
and Germany have interceded on behalf of the civilized world to talk 
plainly to the Iranians. One of my jobs is to make sure they speak as 
plainly as possible to the Iranians and make it absolutely clear that 
the development of a nuclear weapon in Iran is intolerable, and a 
program is intolerable. Otherwise they will be dealt with, starting 
through the United Nations.
    And hopefully we're making progress there as well. It's a tough, 
tough crowd to negotiate with. They've got a classic--it's a really long 
answer, I know. At least I'm answering it. [Laughter] They've got the 
classic principle-to-nonprinciple negotiating strategy available for 
them. They've got a fellow sitting up on top, probably the decisionmaker 
on most matters, and yet the world goes to Khatami, so you're not really 
sure if the message is getting totally delivered or not. I think the 
message is getting delivered to them that it's intolerable if they 
develop a nuclear weapon. It would be intolerable to peace and stability 
in the Middle East if they get a nuclear weapon, particularly since 
their stated objective is the destruction of Israel.
    Last question.
    Mr. Osborne. Just for the record, I've always understood you 
clearly. [Laughter]
    The President. Then why don't you write that way? [Laughter]
    Mr. Osborne. Touche, touche.
    The President. I've known him a long time. [Laughter]

Democracy in Iraq

    Mr. Osborne. There's an editorial in the Washington Post today that 
opines that your opponent has changed his stance on Iraq.
    The President. I'm not going to talk about my opponent here.
    Mr. Osborne. We're not finished with the question.
    The President. Okay. [Laughter] Touche back. [Laughter]
    Mr. Osborne. And he is saying that--he no longer is saying that the 
outcome in Iraq has to be a democracy but rather that it has to be a 
stable government, and that, in their words, democracy is an option. My 
question is, is a democratic form of government in Iraq an option for 
you, or is it an imperative?
    The President. It's necessary. It's what will change the world, help 
change the world. And you either believe people can self-govern or not, 
believe democracy is possible in that part of the world, and I think it 
is. I think it is.
    Listen, thanks for letting me come. I hope you toast more often. 
[Laughter] God bless.

Note: The President spoke at 1:30 p.m. at the Omni Shoreham Hotel. In 
his remarks, he referred to Burl Osborne, chairman, and Tom Curley, 
president and chief executive officer, Associated Press; William Dean 
Singleton, vice chairman and chief executive officer, MediaNews Group, 
Inc.; President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan; former President Saddam 
Hussein of Iraq; Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of Japan; Chairman Kim 
Chong-il of North Korea; President Jiang Zemin of China; A.Q. Khan, 
former head of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program; Prime Minister Ariel 
Sharon of Israel; President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan; Secretary of 
State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Jack Straw of the United 
Kingdom; former Minister of Foreign Affairs Dominique de Villepin of 
France; Minister of Foreign Affairs Joschka Fischer of Germany; and 
Ayatollah Khomenei and President Mohammad Khatami of Iran.

[[Page 664]]